The Grader of Death is Alive and Well
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
I don't know if its really him, or if the graders are under a lot of pressure to get things out, but I just had my most wickedly horrifying submission to date. 50 cards, all 68's and 69's that were all 40x magnified and checked for centering. I figured a few 10's, and then about half 9's and half 8's past that. Results: 17 got 8's and the rest got 7's! ARGGGHHHHH!
Scott
Scott
0
Comments
If you are not planning on resubmitting then why don't you post the results so that we collectors of 7's can go shopping?
Michael
Although, I did manage to get a 1969 #52 Mike Andrews PSA 8 in this bunch, so all is not lost. It'll go up on eBay when it arrives.
I'm about to become a cracker!
Scott
Check out my post on the trading board and let me know if you have any of those 69' cards. I would have serious interest in 8's or 7's from that list. PM or email to aja4rayb@msn.com
RayBShotz
Seems like the grader of death is thriving on the 60's vintage common submissions. Out of two 50 card submission last week, I received only 2 PSA 9's. It wasn't but a few years ago, you could count on receiving 20-25 percent PSA 9's when submitting cards from the 60's, now it seems to be the other way around and you can count on 20-25 percent PSA 7's, to go along with the PSA 8's.
Everybody becomes a "cracker" at some point. I would bet that 10-15 percent of PSA's business is based on crack out submissions.
It sounds like you have all the equipment to review your cards, but always remember to look at the back corners for a slight "flick" in most cases, an instant 7.
You might want to spend a few minutes with an ex - grader from PSA or SGC. They can be very helpful and will show you how to look at cards at the correct angles. A few of these guys are amazing to watch go through a pile of cards in minutes. The ex-graders are around, just have to find them!
Good Luck with your quests!
Mark
Typo!!
"If I ever decided to do a book, I've already got the title-The Bases Were Loaded and So Was I"-Jim Fregosi
Sub553353
Scott
Did you check for print defects and did you physically measure the centering? Most of your 7's came from the 1969 set and most of the cards you received 7s on have chronic print defects and centering problems. This is not to say you didn't get unfairly hammered by the G.O.D.
Scott
553234 zip 10302
overall i am satisfied but hoped the 72's would have done better. the market for 72 psa 9's is tough right now and between my last two submissions i hoped to get at least 15 but got only 2.
Scott
I feel your pain. I broached the subject of PSA's grading standards having possibly gotten stricter about 2 months ago and was basically laughed at. Now, it seems some fairly regular submitters are having the same experience. My typical percentage of 9's was cut by about 2/3 in a submission I received in January. ONE out of approximately 70 cards. On a bad day in years prior, I might have gotten 10 or 12. And I like to think I'm a better grader now. I'm anxious to see what my next 2 submissions hold.
Bottom line...graders are human. The process is NOT entirely set in stone. Some are stricter than others. Some give you the benefit of the doubt, some don't. The Grader of Death is alive and well...and busier than usual.
Personally, I could see a decision to grade tougher at the 9 level, but if this extends down to the 8 level -- How much stricter can they get on 8's, which seems to be the break point in what is desirable (8's) and much less desirable (7's)? Could PSA possibly be trying to send out a message to the PSA collecting community that 7's should be more desirable? From what I've seen, vintage 7's ARE tremendously undervalued. Could it be that this is the beginning of 7's getting more respect? I wonder.
Scott
< FB and others offer sound advise. However, remember to that grading is extremely subjective even at the grader level and it can be a frustrating experience for the submitter.........
case in point:
I recently receive grades on a small batch of 84D's, most of which I was positive would hit at least 9's. I know these cards fairly well and use the usual methods mentioned above, but also incorporate a 20X-40X mircoscope for detailed corner analysis, as I feel it's in the corners where the majority of grade differential is found, especially in newer cards. I was disappointed that I was right at the 50% mark - half 9's (and a few 10's) and the rest 8's. (I did predict and receive a 10 on one card in particular!). That's an extremely sucky percentage for 9's and I can deal with that..........however.......
when I studied several 84D 9's I purchase a few months ago (and recently graded), I found the corners on many were just slightly more rounded at 20X than of those I just submitted. More like a 'point' than an 'edge'. (I would summize the purchased 9's must have come from a cello wrapped factory set; mine came from recent wax).
While I certainly will not rant, rave, or point fingers, I am disappointed in my findings. So, I will study these cards in even greater detail to see if I can do better, although at this time I'm not sure where to start. However, as I stated earlier, graders are humans too and subjected to unending conveyor-belt exposure to these cards......so even if your are extremely dialed in as a submitter, it's still somewhat of gamble to what the final tally from your submissions will be.
Overall, I am pleased with the grading of the big 3 - GAI, SGC, and PSA - but at times frustrated too.
Happy submitting,
BOTR >
Joe
We find the best grades come from submissions in late December/early January (holiday spirit perhaps?, darth grader on vacation?) and lousy grades come right before baseball season starts. I'm holding off making my next submission until late spring/early summer.
I submitted a batch of 60's commons in January and got the most favorable grades I've ever received. Many were crackout 7's that got bumped up to 8's. The only exceptions were a run of 100 nice 1961 commons, picked raw at the Tri-Star show in Houston. I was disappointed with only 1/3 8's and 2/3 7's. But since that's about how my entire set looks, I'm fairly satisfied with a great looking set of cards.
I spotted a trend in the late fall of posters being pleased with their submissions, then acted accordingly.
<< <i>We find the best grades come from submissions in late December/early January (holiday spirit perhaps?, darth grader on vacation?) and lousy grades come right before baseball season starts. I'm holding off making my next submission until late spring/early summer. >>
Funny you say that. I spoke with Joe Orlando in a phone conversation a year ago this time and he told me that there was a three-four week time period or so around last January that the graders were exceptionally tough - too tough at times. I guess once the holidays are over and darth grader
doesn't get what he wants for Christmas he comes back even meaner than ever. You should
send him a bottle of merlot or something next time. Open up that wallet a little....
aconte
stepping on any lines on the way into the post office or not changing socks during a streak of nice submission results.
<< <i>Next, I expect to hear about not stepping on any lines on the way into the post office or not changing socks during a streak of nice submission results. >>
Hey, that's what I do
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
<< <i>
when I studied several 84D 9's I purchase a few months ago (and recently graded), I found the corners on many were just slightly more rounded at 20X than of those I just submitted. More like a 'point' than an 'edge'. (I would summize the purchased 9's must have come from a cello wrapped factory set; mine came from recent wax).
Happy submitting,
BOTR > >>
BOTR:
The potential problem/issue I see with your methodology is as follows: Although you (and others) are looking at their cards with 20x and 40x mag. loupes - the bottom line is that PSA is NOT grading using such magnification. If you are seeing stuff that is there at 20x or 40x that is not there at 8x or 12x, then the bottom line is it won't matter. Whether or not you agree with PSA's grading system (and its sometime propensity to have divergent results), the bottom line is that you are employing a different methodology than PSA -- so, ceteris parabis, it is not surprising that you have divergent results. You are placing too much importance on one thing (corners) compared to the graders.
<< <i>You are placing too much importance on one thing (corners) compared to the graders. >>
I agree with you in principle, but of all the other criteria to inspect, I have no idea where then to put added emphasis. I incorporate the usual proper lighting techniques using magnification, glare, and angles to inspect surface features and imperfections, front and back, and the same can be said about the 4 edges. And remember, we are talking about new fresh-out-of-the-pack cards here. Sure, that doesn't guarantee mint but the CHANCHES of mint increase with less handling. To me, the biggest wildcard in new card submissions is the handling of the card and any damage occuring upon packaging and storage when new. You'd have to agree that corners would be the most vulnerable aspect of damage at this point.
If not corners, but an individual trait strictly related to 84D's, then I'm back to the drawing board, lessons unlearned. And with all the 10's recently ebayed, it makes me feel even more like a fool as to what I'm missing.
BOTR
Having said that, my last 2 submissions were for completly different groups of cards. The first were star and semi star cards that were ex-ex mint. I figured if I got PSA 6s on the early 50's to PSA 7 s on the later 50's to early 60's, I would be happy and sell them online. The other batch were hi grade 52 Bowman through 1957 Topps baseball.
I got almost all 8's on the first batch, and mostly 7s and 6s on the later lot. I cracked the later lot and resubmitted and got mostly 8s with several 7s due to possibly centering (plus one MC which got a 7 the first time around).
I am bringing the worst of the PSA 8 lot (a 1960 Master and Mentor, 3 hit corners) to Chicago this weekend to personally show Mr. Orlando. Will let you know the results on Tuesday.
i also feel the same differance applies to a high end 8 and a 9. on my last sub. i had a 74 carlos may that i expected to be graded an 8 it's kind of low pop in a 9 so i didn't care. the top right corner had very very slight wear, visible to the naked eye and under magnification you couldn't help not missing it. the card DID have that dripping wet color and super sharp focus. it got a 9.
you also have to consider the "human factor" these graders aren't god (at least in most circles) and are far from perfect. i'm sure plenty of people have been shocked to see some cards graded a ten, i know i have.
hubcap- be careful that joe doesn't take that card and have it reholdered as a 6!!
I hope he does. That is where it belongs. It is a off grade card. I would hate to sell it online and then the buyer looks at it and is disappointed. How would you feel if I sold it to you?
But on the other hand, I have a 1957 PSA 8 Tanner that he better put in a PSA 9 holder!!! Fair is fair. I just can't for the life of me understand how someone can miss something that obvious. How can you have a grader that wants every card to be a PSA 9 just to get it in a PSA 7 holder, when you have other graders who let off grade, OC, print defect, etc pass by for PSA 8????
There was a 1961 Mantle PSA 8 recently for sale on line with a print line as wide as the road vertically on the right side. How can you miss that? And yet Igot a PD on a very high end 1957 PSA 8 for a few touches of snow that were not visible to the naked eye.
a while back i bought a 71 bench in a psa 7, i bought it off ebay, the scan wasn't so hot and when i got the card it was a very early grade and by the present standards would have been a 6. when i tried to sell, i noted this in the auction and it didn't sell. i still have the card. if i weren't so painfully computer illiterate i'd post it. LMK if you want to see it and i could shoot you an email with a scan. believe me when i say; that this card makes the recent psa 7 bench that sold on ebay for 150+ look like a 9.
edited to add: i do agree that sometimes the PSA grades are not consistent but i still think they are the best choice out there. i have a GAI 9.5 '72 astros team card that i'm afraid may not cross to a psa 8.
That Mantle has the 07 cert #. Graded at a show with quick turnaround and such cards repeatedly get the benefit of the doubt in my experience.
I agree that PSA is the best option out there without doubt. What I just cannot accept is the inconsistency.
I sell acrylic displays at shows and that would be like me explaining to you that sometimes I sell you a broken/scratched/deficient piece, and you should accept the fact that I am not perfect and things slip by! That is unacceptable. My business/personal name is on every item I sell.
Plz also help me out...where in the grading standards does it refer to hi and low end grades? I though that a grading standard was a grading standard. Maybe that is why other companies have a half grade. I don't feel it is necessary to go to a half grade for PSA. Just be consistent to the grading standard. Then you would not have overly zealous graders and loose ones.
Is it a matter of training on the job site?
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
That is why PSA should have half grades
One should be possibly an 8 and the other a seven. I get that all the time on 1963 BB. Strong cards but centered poorly. I accept that. That is the standard. But to grade both cards you describe as 8s (one high and one low end) is wrong. It rewards the weak card. And to me, that is the whole basis of grading. Remember, almost 10 years ago when gradeing started, it was the intention to have cards graded so that you could buy them sight unseen if both parties understood/accepted the standards. So if I bought a PSA 9 card from you sight unseen, I would be asured that the card would not have a print line, wax stain, poor centering, out of focus on it. It would be what the standard says a 9 is!!! If I bought an 8 from you sight unseen, I might except a certain standard of centering, a very small print defect, wax stain, etc on it. Not something 62-38, but maybe 55-45 or better. As you know, this never took off because the standards were all over the place. Hell, I see SGC 92s that are 90-10 OC! *laugh* PSA does the best in adhering to the industry wide accepted standards. Their graders at time get away from the standards and for reasons that are not compltely explained to my satisfaction.
AZ
poeandbb's point about half grades is well-taken, but that still leaves room (although less) for differences between a high-end and a low-end card in the grade. After all, you could also have to other cards in the box with identical surfaces, corners and edges to the two from my first hypothetical, but these two have 55-45 and 59-41 centering. Besides, considering all the cards that are in PSA holders that are not graded on the half-point scale, it would be a disaster for PSA collectors (and probably for PSA as well) if the company were to switch now.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
i agree PSA has room for improvement in more than one area. however, i know that the other options out there leave ALOT more to be desired. IMO , PSA has come a long way since joe took over, if you look at some of the older grades (the ones with the PSA hologram on the flip) you'll see plenty of 7's and 8's that should be in 5 and 6 holders and by the present standards would be.
using your analogy again, if you sell 300 pieces a month you may have a couple of quality control problems. PSA may grade nearly 80,000 cards a month so the quality contol issues are on a larger scale.
i don't want to turn this post into a joe orlando love fest, because he's said some things that have left me scratching my head, but i do understand that he is accountable to the stockholders of a large company and just can't / won't make certain statements. on the other hand, how many presidents of large companies will take the time to personally speak to a customer?
in regards to the inconsistency between graders, it DOES exist. i have wondered what people would prefer. would someone want every invoice handled by a "grader of death" or the grader that gives every card the benefit of the doubt? i know that many people would want the benefit of the doubt. personally , i recognize that the latter choice IS NOT best. a middle ground SHOULD be established and i remain optimistic that joe will be able to achieve this by relying on our feedback. in the meantime what should we do when the other options are OVERWHELMINGLY less appealing?
i'm not a professional grader but my understanding (which may be wrong) on high end grades and low end grades are as follows:
i'll use PSA 8 NQ as the example, only because in most of the issues i collect an 8 is an acceptable grade.
low end:
at worst a PSA 8 could have two slightly frayed corners, a minor PD, a slight stain on the reverse, slightly off white borders, 70/30 centering on the front and 90/10 on the back.
high end:
at best a PSA 8 could have one corner with slight fraying, no PD, no staining, white borders, and 50/50 centering on front and 70/30 on the reverse.
i am aware that a tough grader may put the FIRST example in a 7 holder . on the other hand , a more tolerant grader may put the SECOND example in a 9 holder. this is where i think grader subjectivity and eye appeal come in. this is NOT to say that a card like that 61 mantle should have been an UNQUALIFIED 8.
i'm curious to know the outcome of your conversation with joe, please keep me advised. i think he is reasonable and if your concerns are expressed to him in an appropriate manner i'm sure he will be receptive. this is based upon what people who have met the man have relayed to me.
NM-MT 8: Near Mint-Mint.
"A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end card that appears Mint 9 at first glance, but upon closer inspection, the card can exhibit the following: a very slight wax stain on reverse, slightest fraying at one or two corners, a minor printing imperfection, and/or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse. "
a 62-38 card is within the range of the stated guidelines but you want it to be a psa 7. how is that consistancy? If the card meets the criteria then it is that grade, once card is 55-45 and one is 68-32 and they both meet the criteria so they both get the grade. which one do I prefer? the 55-45 cards all other aspects equal and I will pay a little more for it.
I think we all agree that what we want is consistency. There should be no death grader and there should be no slacker grader. There should be IMO lots of training for all graders to achieve consistency. Then you will truly see the differences between the grading services.
One other problem which may occur is the same people grading new and vintage cards. I can't for the life of me grade a new card. I think it looks good and it comes back an 8 for friends. What do I know? I do know vintage cards 1952 through 1965. And I know the paper conditions from year to year, the scarcity of certain cards caused by their location on a sheet, etc. In fact, I just paid a King's ransom for a 1961 PSA 8 Ralph Terry from Buckwheat which I hesitated (thanks for convincing me otherwise Rob!) and it is OC in my humble opinion. However, when I pulled out every raw Terry card I owned as a kid, they were all OC...mostly 90-10. So I guess if you knew the history of the card location and run, then maybe 85-15 is not OC. These are the things that graders should be trained in.
Did you know that Dr. Beckett for years did not know which cards were SP in the various vintage years? We used to buy them up for a buck, like 1958 Harrell, 1961 Skowron, Maz and Neal. And this person put out a price guide? Give me a break. So that's what you need to be a vintage grader. Knowledge of the card, not just the condition. I suggested to Mr. Orlando a year ago that he should hire collectoprs to be graders!!!
Off to Chicago. Advise you of our conversation on Monday.
Thanks guys!
I agree with everything you said....except that they need to accomodate tough to find centered cards with a more lax standard. I believe that is what makes the chase fun, looking for that rare card that is actually centered well enough. I know in my last submission, I have a few cards that are very close to o/c, but I'm just crossing my fingers that they become psa 8's with no qual.
<< <i>There should be no way a reverse flick on a corner should knock someone to a 7. That's unfair. >>
Centering and corners I can understand their harshness but I think what is more unfair is not knocking down obvious eye appeal issues like focusing but cards with a minute wrinkle on backs that cannot be seen with the eye get slammed with a 5. This was why I stopped submitting cards for grading.
I met with Mr. Orlando Sunday AM before the puiblic got in and he reviewed several cards I had brought to discuss with him. here are the results.
1) My 1961 Mantle Longest HR went from Psa 7 to 8.
2) Andrew Jackson 1956 Topps President card went from PSA 3 to 5 (there was a small cut or indent in the top of the card.
3) No change on 1963 Topps Richardson or 1958 Mathews - both stay a 7 due to centering.
4) The 1960 Mays/Rigney Master & Mentor went from PSA 8 to 7 (generous...I would have graded it a 6). Joe thanked me for my honesty and I now I feel more comfortable selling it as a 7 instead of a low 8.
The show was well attended and most vendors did well. I had the privilege of meeting King Kellogg (Larry) who flew in from the west coast. He found me no problem and we had a nice conversation.
I appreciate the time Joe took to review and explain the card grading and changes to me. You don't get a company Prez to do that in the current business environment. I suggest any Board members with a problem to contact him.
AZ
Both. He was very interested in seeing the 1960 overgrade Master & Mentor. He agreed that the overgrading was in error. He also looked at the 1961 Mantle and President's card, and wanted to take them in the back. The others, he suggested that there would be no change and I understood and had no problem with his explanation. Those cards did not go back for review to the graders.
We talked about consistency and I understand that you do that many cards with so many different graders, and there will be differences of opinion among the graders. I do agree with another post I saw this morning that a couple of graders want the cards to be so close to a 9 in order to get an 8. The Mantle was like that. Very solid card. Minimal wear, perfectly centered, bright white borders and was definitely not a 7.
He also knows what to look for and how to view the card from different angles. Sharp guy who is doing very well for this company. I just might buy stock. *wink*
Oh, I forgot the 1957 PSA 8 Tanner. It was 9 quality but he did not have it reviewed since he thought there was a tad much snow flakes. I don't agree but overall, he was fair and listened patiently to my comments. I respect that and accept the 8.
AZ